Production of carbon aerogels by CO 2 supercritical drying of resorcinol-formaldehyde (RF) hydrogels followed by pyrolysis in inert atmosphere has been extensively described in the scientific literature, since their introduction by Pekala in 1989 [1]. Supercritical conditions suppress the liquid-vapor interface, avoiding shrinkage and cracking of the material during solvent removal and preserving the porous texture. As supercritical drying remains difficult to apply at an industrial scale because of its expensive and potentially dangerous character, other softer drying techniques have been tested in order to produce an aerogel-like mesoporous texture: freeze-drying [2], vacuum drying [3], microwave drying [4], solvent exchange followed by freeze drying [5] or drying under nitrogen in tube furnace [6],... Quite surprisingly, it appears that conventional convective drying, with controlled air temperature, velocity and humidity, has never been used in order to produce RF xerogels. As this technique is well known and largely used in the industry, it seemed interesting to study its suitability: would this technique enable us to obtain porous RF (and carbon after pyrolysis) xerogels?Hydrogels have been prepared following the method described by Job et al. [3]. The molar ratio R/F and the dilution ratio D, as defined by these latter, were fixed at 0.5 and 5.7 respectively. Three initial values of the pH of the precursors solution were chosen: 6. 6.5 and 7 (±0.05). Cylindrical samples were obtained by casting 5 ml solution into sealed glass moulds (∅ = 22 mm) and putting them for gelation in an oven at 85°C during 72 h. After gelation, the samples had a mass comprised between 4.2 and 5.1 g. They have been dried in a classical convective rig, with air at ambient humidity, at a temperature of 70°C and a superficial velocity of 2 m/s, i.e. quite severe drying conditions. Fig. 1a shows the drying curves, i.e. the evolution of mass with time, for the three samples. In each case, mass stabilization occurs after approximately 4 to 5 hours, indicating the end of the drying process. In comparison with vacuum drying, the drying duration is about 40 times shorter [3]. The three samples reached a final mass close to 1.45 g and kept their monolithic form.Volumetric shrinkage was negligible when pH = 6 (orange xerogel), reached 21% when pH = 6.5 (light brown xerogel) and 60% when pH = 7 (dark brown xerogel). At high pH, a large shrinkage is observed even with supercritical drying, because of the 'polymeric' character of the gel [7]. The drying kinetics are represented in Fig. 1b by plotting the drying flux (kg/m²s) vs. the water content W (kg/kg), expressed on a dry basis, as commonly encountered in the drying literature. A